VādaMulti-model deliberation

Independent views.Clearer judgment.

Several models, different vendors, each reviewing alone.Where they disagree is where the uncertainty is.

the questionShould we rewrite the billing service?
Claude
Anthropic · on its ownYes, start with invoicing. It causes most incidents.
OpenAI
OpenAI · on its ownYes, but only invoicing. Leave the ledger alone.
Gemini
Google · on its ownYes, invoicing first. Plan for two quarters.
Grok
xAI · on its ownNo. Fix the test coverage first; a rewrite hides the real bugs.

3 agree · 1 disagrees: check the tests before you commit

Pick your room.

Bring your own keys · Choose every model slot · Mix vendors

01

Reviewers

Three models, side by side.

Claude
OpenAI
Gemini
Explore team

02

Reviewers + Synthesis

Their consensus and conflicts, structured.

Claude
OpenAI
Gemini
Explore team

03

Outside Read

A battlefield map, audited before delivery.

Claude
Gemini
OpenAI
Grok
Explore team
See all the teams

The conclusion shows its work.

Agreement and conflict, named.Every word on the record.

Outside Read
For high-stakes decisions: blind critique and fact-checking before delivery.
resultreviewers + synthesis
agreementRewrite only the invoicing module firstKeep the ledger schema as it is
conflictTimeline: one quarter, or two?
transcript · every word
Claude
The invoicing code is the source of most incidents…
OpenAI
A full rewrite risks the ledger; scope it down…
Gemini
Two quarters is realistic once migration is counted…
audited
blind critic ✓ · fact-checker ✓ · Outside Read

Use Vāda where you work.

One tool call from Claude, Cursor or any MCP client.

Set up MCP
your assistant · mcp
>